Welders work on a joint between two sections of pipe during construction of the Gulf Coast Project pipeline in Oklahoma in 2013. The Gulf Coast Project, a 485-mile crude oil pipeline being constructed by TransCanada Corp., is part of the Keystone XL pipeline project.

Bloomberg

Back when he was running for president in 2008, Barack Obama hit upon a vivid way to illustrate just how long the race had dragged on. Babies, he would say, had been born and were “walking and talking” since the campaign got underway.

As it happens, 2008 was also the year TransCanada Corp. first submitted an application to build the Keystone XL pipeline running from Canada to the Gulf Coast. In the time it’s taken the federal government to review the project, the kids are not only walking and talking — they’re reading and writing.

Last Friday came the news that the Obama administration had delayed the Keystone application yet again. As the reason, the State Department cited litigation in Nebraska over a law that allowed the pipeline through the state as it carries more than 700,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to the refineries on the Gulf Coast.

What this means is the administration likely won’t decide Keystone’s fate until the midterm elections have come and gone.

That’s by no means a bad outcome for Democrats. In many ways, it is the best possible outcome in a tough political environment. For the Obama administration, making an up-or-down decision before November invites trouble. Approve the pipeline and Mr. Obama alienates the Democratic base: the activists, environmentalists and liberal donors needed to boost turnout and keep the Senate under Democratic control.

Reject Keystone and he damages the re-election chances of a handful of red-state Democratic senators like Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Voters might wonder why they need a Landrieu in office if she can’t push Mr. Obama to green-light a project that promises jobs and revenue for her home state.

By contrast, a delay has little downside. Democratic campaign operatives have made clear they’re pleased that a Keystone ruling isn’t coming any time soon.

“This allows Democratic incumbents running for the Senate who support Keystone to highlight the differences they have with both the president and the party,” said a national Democratic strategist. “In that sense, it’s a positive for us.”

Mr. Obama, of course, has a keen interest in the midterms. Last week he took part in an unpublicized meeting at the White House with his pollster, Joel Benenson, former campaign adviser Larry Grisolano and others, according to a person familiar with the meeting. Topics included the midterm elections, this person said.

The White House has downplayed its own role in the Keystone review process, noting that the State Department is running the review, in keeping with an executive order that gives State a lead role because the pipeline crosses an international border.

“The president has been consistent in always wanting the process to be conducted on the merits…,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a briefing this week.

When the delay was announced, Republicans accused the White House of playing politics with the decision. But others point to a different issue that often gets lost in the Keystone fight: Government’s ability to settle regulatory matters in timely fashion.

“I don’t think it surprises anyone that this is a political decision,” said Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank. “I think it raises the question of how good we are at making political decisions.”

About Washington Wire

Washington Wire is one of the oldest standing features in American journalism. Since the Wire launched on Sept. 20, 1940, the Journal has offered readers an informal look at the capital. Now online, the Wire provides a succession of glimpses at what’s happening behind hot stories and warnings of what to watch for in the days ahead. The Wire is led by Reid J. Epstein, with contributions from the rest of the bureau. Washington Wire now also includes Think Tank, our home for outside analysis from policy and political thinkers.